Ridiculous narrative on #Newsnight that the Remain/Brexit schism is to blame for UK government's sclerosis and continuing failure to progress either domestic or foreign policy (i.e. A50).
Go back to first principles. ▶️
Reason government not making progress on domestic agenda is because domestic agenda completely constrained by foreign agenda (Brexit). And Brexit has no structure, no coherent strategic direction and no competent actors. ▶️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
• UK government choses to remove itself from EU SM and CU.
• UK gov chooses to minimise/denigrate importance of EU SM and CU in UK trade
• A bemused EU allows the UK to test its assumptions against reality
The Leavers have spent the last 30+ months saying that the EU's Single Market, Customs Union and Common Commercial Policy effectively hold back British competitiveness and innovation.➡️
So the EU are saying "Off you trot, put your money where your mouth is; but - just so you're aware - please don't expect us to act as your safety net or to allow you to compromise the standards that we have established. Out of the EU means out of the SM". ➡️
@Arron_banks And now for the second part of your remedial education for today, pointless as it may be. NATO was established to guarantee the integrity of western Europe's borders against the potential for invasion by the Warsaw Pact, primarily the Soviet Union and East Germany. ➡️
@Arron_banks The establishment of the EU's predecessors - the EEC and the ECSC - was designed to prevent internal conflict in western Europe based on economic disagreements which had been the pretext for many of Europe's conflicts over the centuries. ➡️
@Arron_banks Even the United States - under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations - recognised that an economically-integrated and politically-united western Europe was better for the US because it removed the likelihood of the US becoming involved in another western European war… ➡️
Firstly, your statement implies that the ability to influence any given course of action is equally shared across all stakeholders and history demonstrate that is rarely (if ever) the case. ➡️
Secondly, even an equitable distribution of influence would still require a coherent and cohesive strategic plan with negotiating objectives that are acceptable to all stakeholders (UK, EU, EU-27 member nations, European Parliament) and compatible with EU law. ➡️
As a codicil to that statement, such a strategic plan would also have to be compatible with the UK's existing international obligations (such as the Belfast Agreement) and also the international obligations of both the EU-27 and the UK to other bodies, such as the WTO. ➡️
There are three areas of concern in Gove's statement to Marr that the Chequers 'plan' (?) wouldn't be the settled end state of the UK's relationship with the EU-17 and be subject to change at the whim of some future PM or Conservative faction. ➡️
First, the obvious one: Why should the EU and the member nations take any element of Chequers or any variant seriously? If you're already trailing the possibility that a UK government would disavow its commitments (again), that seems unlikely to encourage trust. ➡️
Secondly, why would a potential FTA partner believe that the UK is a sincere and trustworthy trade partner for the long term? ➡️
If some of my fellow British Jews are preparing to leave the UK in case Corbyn becomes Prime Minister whilst the current ruling Conservative government votes to support Orban's deeply anti-Semitic (and racist) Fidesz regime, they're only looking at one side. ➡️
The thing that's re-enabling anti-Semitism in this country is the resurgence of right-wing nationalism in the wake of Brexit. Labour may not be doing anything substantive to counter this, but the Conservatives are actually encouraging it because they are in power. ➡️
It is their philosophy that is pandering to ultra-right xenomisiac parties across Europe and emboldening their hatred of Jews and Muslims alike. And the reason they are pandering is because of their desire to win support for their Brexit proposals. ➡️
So, yesterday's Brexiteers want to be able to diverge away from the rules of the Single Market (or the 'common rulebook' as Chequers calls it) because that's stifling UK economic growth and the UK must be allowed to put sawdust in sausages. ➡️
But today, the risks/effects of products that are not SM-compliant crossing over the border into the Republic and (and subsequently the remaining members of the EU-27 and the EEA) are minimal and there doesn't need to be a hard customs border in between NI and the Republic. ➡️
Yesterday's Brexiteers believe the WTO is the right option, but today's Brexiteers (who, somewhat bizarrely, are the same people) believe that the EU should eschew the rules of the WTO and wait for some non-existent technology to manifest itself. ➡️